Wednesday, January 10, 2007
http://health.yahoo.com/experts/menlovesex/12279/are-men-more-vain-than-women;_ylt=Aijuadt2mSJdvpW6gbWt8mSrJNIF?print=1&cin=
Are Men More Vain Than Women?
Posted by David Zinczenko
on Mon, Jan 08, 2007, 3:22 pm PST
Post a Comment
The Unspoken Man Code has many rules. Next pitcher's on us. No crying at any movies rated PG or lower. Eyes forward at the urinal at all times. Another: Never admit you're worried about how you look.
It's doubtful that you'll hear many men ask anybody how they look in their jeans, or if their back hair is getting too Konglike, or if that flabby jiggle hanging over the belts is something they should be concerned about. While it may be common for women to articulate their bodily insecurities (in hopes that men will dismiss them, perhaps), men rarely say anything about theirs. That's because they're afraid that women will label them as too vain, too weak, too metro, too feminine, too devoid of the confidence they want and expect in a man.
But the truth is that men care almost as much about their appearance as Lindsay Lohan cares about New Year's Eve. The survey I did for my book Men, Love & Sex showed that 9 in 10 men aren't satisfied with their appearance -- and that they'd jump at the chance at changing one particular part of their body if they could. Consider these truths about men and their appearance -- and then ask yourself, Who's really more vain, women...or men?
* Women may buy more shoes, but men drop the big bucks. When asked how much he'd pay for rock-hard abs (if it was only that easy), the average guy would invest $5,000 of his own money in himself. For movie-star looks in general, he'd drop $17,600. The scary fact: Although more women actually pay for cosmetic enhancements, men who seek medical help for their appearance are twice as likely to opt for an invasive cosmetic procedure like liposuction rather than a non-invasive appearance boost.
* Men care more about their boobs than you do. Check this out: Only 34 percent of women surveyed said they'd want bigger breasts, but 38 percent of men said they'd want larger pectoral muscles. (If you were wondering, the circumference of the average man's chest is two inches larger than that of a woman's.) Men either have the pecs that are strong enough to break knuckles, or we're subjected to the ubiquitous man-boob barbs. And that hurts. Beating pecs as the top male body issue by the tiniest of jiggles: Just over 40 percent of guys say the gut is the No. 1 body part they'd like to change.
* $1.1 billion can buy a lot of hair gel. One of a man's biggest frets comes when he looks down the shower drain and says goodbye to the mane that defines his manhood. American men spend more than $300 million on toupees annually. And $800 million on hair transplants (up to $20,000 for each procedure, which is performed on more than 24,000 men annually-and just 7,000 women).
Now ladies, you may be tempted to decry this as further evidence of the wimpification of the American male. Or say that men are the new women. But let's think this through a little bit. Vanity, of course, can be shallow and self obsessive. As ever, if you take anything to extremes, it becomes a liability. But this time of the year in particular, vanity, properly calibrated, can be a useful form of self-evaluation. And in fact, how we look does have direct corollaries in how healthy we are. That jiggly gut or flabby chest can be a warning of dangerously low metabolism, an early warning sign of high blood pressure, diabetes, even heart disease. And if we take those warnings for what they are, and act to change, our vanity just might turn us around in the short run, and save lives in the long run.
Think men have their appearance priorities in the right place? Or should they be worried about something else when it comes to their image and looks? Let me know.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Saturday, December 30, 2006
If Men Could Menstruate
by Gloria Steinem
(c) Gloria Steinem, Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions. NY: NAL, 1986.
Living in
Reading Freud made me just as skeptical about penis envy. The power of giving birth makes "womb envy" more logical, and an organ as external and unprotected as the penis makes men very vulnerable indeed.
But listening recently to a woman describe the unexpected arrival of her menstrual period (a red stain had spread on her dress as she argued heatedly on the public stage) still made me cringe with embarrassment. That is, until she explained that, when finally informed in whispers of the obvious event, she said to the all-male audience, "and you should be proud to have a menstruating woman on your stage. It's probably the first real thing that's happened to this group in years."
Laughter. Relief. She had turned a negative into a positive. Somehow her story merged with
So what would happen if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not?
Clearly, menstruation would become an enviable, worthy, masculine event:
Men would brag about how long and how much.
Young boys would talk about it as the envied beginning of manhood. Gifts, religious ceremonies, family dinners, and stag parties would mark the day.
To prevent monthly work loss among the powerful, Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea. Doctors would research little about heart attacks, from which men would be hormonally protected, but everything about cramps.
Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. Of course, some men would still pay for the prestige of such commercial brands as Paul Newman Tampons, Muhammad Ali's Rope-a-Dope Pads, John Wayne Maxi Pads, and Joe Namath Jock Shields- "For Those Light Bachelor Days."
Statistical surveys would show that men did better in sports and won more Olympic medals during their periods.
Generals, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation ("men-struation") as proof that only men could serve God and country in combat ("You have to give blood to take blood"), occupy high political office ("Can women be properly fierce without a monthly cycle governed by the planet Mars?"), be priests, ministers, God Himself ("He gave this blood for our sins"), or rabbis ("Without a monthly purge of impurities, women are unclean").
Male liberals and radicals, however, would insist that women are equal, just different; and that any woman could join their ranks if only she were willing to recognize the primacy of menstrual rights ("Everything else is a single issue") or self-inflict a major wound every month ("You must give blood for the revolution").
Street guys would invent slang ("He's a three-pad man") and "give fives" on the corner with some exchange like, "Man you lookin' good!"
"Yeah, man, I'm on the rag!"
TV shows would treat the subject openly. (Happy Days: Richie and Potsie try to convince Fonzie that he is still "The Fonz," though he has missed two periods in a row.
Men would convince women that sex was more pleasurable at "that time of the month." Lesbians would be said to fear blood and therefore life itself, though all they needed was a good menstruating man.
Medical schools would limit women's entry ("they might faint at the sight of blood").
Of course, intellectuals would offer the most moral and logical arguments. Without the biological gift for measuring the cycles of the moon and planets, how could a woman master any discipline that demanded a sense of time, space, mathematics-- or the ability to measure anything at all? In philosophy and religion, how could women compensate for being disconnected from the rhythm of the universe? Or for their lack of symbolic death and resurrection every month?
Menopause would be celebrated as a positive event, the symbol that men had accumulated enough years of cyclical wisdom to need no more.
Liberal males in every field would try to be kind. The fact that "these people" have no gift for measuring life, the liberals would explain, should be punishment enough.
And how would women be trained to react? One can imagine right-wing women agreeing to all these arguments with a staunch and smiling masochism. ("The ERA would force housewives to wound themselves every month": Phyllis Schlafly)
In short, we would discover, as we should already, that logic is in the eye of the logician. (For instance, here's an idea for theorists and logicians: if women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of our menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level, then why isn't it logical to say that, in those few days, women behave the most like the way men behave all month long? I leave further improvisation up to you.)
The truth is that, if men could menstruate, the power justifications would go on and on.
If we let them.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Thanks.
Question of the day--what are you favorite cutesy movies?